"Our attacks will continue as long as you support Israel."

#1
Message released by Bin Laden in January this year said:

"Our attacks will continue as long as you support Israel."

It went on: "America will never dream of security unless we will have it in reality in Palestine."

Does anyone else think it is time to enforce UN Resolution 242 (the return of Israel to pre-1967 borders)?
 
#2
No, I think a larger more expansive Israel is what the region needs. Perhaps, given Turkey's soon to be entrance, Israel should be preparing themselves for entry to the EEC block?
 
#3
Very selective quoting, Al Qaeda is about much more than just Israel-Palestine.

He's been playing to that though recently because his other justifications don't have quite as much support in the region.
 
#4
tubbs1970 said:
Message released by Bin Laden in January this year said:

"Our attacks will continue as long as you support Israel."

It went on: "America will never dream of security unless we will have it in reality in Palestine."

Does anyone else think it is time to enforce UN Resolution 242 (the return of Israel to pre-1967 borders)?
No. Because unless AQ has changed its tune since 2002 :

"An al Qaeda manifesto titled "Why We Fight America," which was made public in June 2002, expresses radical Islam's agenda with abundant clarity: "What happened to America [on 9/11] is something natural, an expected event for a country that uses terror, arrogant policy, and suppression against the nations and the peoples . . . America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by . . . laws that contradict the way of Allah. . . . [Therefore], we have the right to kill 4 million Americans - 2 million of them children - and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons . . ."

...It wouldn't make any difference. The thing that really got on Osama's nipples was the appearance of US troops in Saudi in 1991. He wanted all his Afghan Mujahaddin mates to defend Saudi against Saddam, rather than invite in the infidel. Sadly for him, the Saudis took one look at Saddams' war machine, considered the fanatic rabble Osama was offering to guard their borders, and phoned Washington.

"To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able, in any country," the manifesto reads, "until their armies, shattered and broken-winged, depart from all the lands of Islam."
(http://www.cfr.org/publication/9951/)

Just the concept of the USA, with its separation of religion and State, democracy, promising liberty and opportunity to all, WHATEVER their colour, creed, or sex, is an absolute opposite to what AQ stands for- Which is total submission to the will of Allah as interpreted through the bigotry of one Osama B_L.
Read this bit again:
"America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by . . . laws that contradict the way of Allah."

Which is a pity really, as he is no Islamic expert. He was trained as a public administrator and civil engineer. So following his advice is a bit like going on Crusade on the moral authority of your local council town planner.

Palestine is a side issue. AQ has never had much of a foothold in the Occupied territories, as the PLO/HAMAS/ and Hezbollah have it pretty well stitched up. Hezbollah, especially, are Shia, and AQ are fundamentalist Sunni. AQ is almost entirely focussed on Saudi. Their presence in Afghanistan is simply because they were so unpopular, only the Taliban would host them. Even the Sudanese, genocidal as they were, chucked him out. All that's happened since is that a number of other militant groups, such as the headbangers from the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) in Algeria have all 'affiliated' to AQ for the added machismo of being part of the 9/11 global jihad, rather than just being nasty local terrorists.

AQ will fight the USA because, in its view, the USA is an abomination. It may dislike the Jews, but hates everything that the USA represents, and no adjustment of the 1967 map will change that.
 
#5
arko said:
Very selective quoting, Al Qaeda is about much more than just Israel-Palestine.

He's been playing to that though recently because his other justifications don't have quite as much support in the region.
Thanks for your input and i agree with both your points, but...

If we do want peace it is necessary to negotiate, and Bin Ladens request to enforce International law as perscribed by United Nations is hard to dismiss as unreasonable.

Remember that the UK fought the IRA for 40+ (?) years before finally realizing you can't defeat such an ingrained political ideology - negotiation is the only real solution.

Brandy - great idea to keep our soldiers busy fighting someone elses cause! Will be great for Tea Room sales in Wootton Bassett too...
 
#6
tubbs1970 when you said "If we do want peace it is necessary to negotiate, and Bin Ladens request to enforce International law as perscribed by United Nations is hard to dismiss as unreasonable." this implies that both sides are prepared to negotiate to reach a compromise.

Unfortunately AQ and their like seem to be very reluctant to negotiate in any way, they want us to compromise but they will not. They believe that they have some form of 'holy writ' from God to wage holy war on any state or peoples that they see as infidels and on that they will not compromise.

I will ask is 'what is the answer?' and quite honestly at this time I do not know.
 
#7
Hector - very informative post, thanks.

So, do we have an on going conflict until every Muslim with this ideology is dead or imprisoned in Guantanamo?

Or, do we compromise by enforcing UN Resolution 242, which was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22 1967, and seeing where that gets us?
 
#8
homeworker said:
tubbs1970 when you said "If we do want peace it is necessary to negotiate, and Bin Ladens request to enforce International law as perscribed by United Nations is hard to dismiss as unreasonable." this implies that both sides are prepared to negotiate to reach a compromise.

Unfortunately AQ and their like seem to be very reluctant to negotiate in any way, they want us to compromise but they will not. They believe that they have some form of 'holy writ' from God to wage holy war on any state or peoples that they see as infidels and on that they will not compromise.

I will ask is 'what is the answer?' and quite honestly at this time I do not know.
Thanks Home(should be)worker... hasn't Bin Laden opened negotiating by effectively saying "We will stop attacking USA (& her Allies) when you enforce International Law in Middle East"

The ball's in our court, so to speak
 
#9
AQ decided that, instead of asking for what it wanted, it would start killing anyone it disliked. What's to say negotiation with the is worth the effort?
 
#11
tubbs1970 said:
Hector - very informative post, thanks.

So, do we have an on going conflict until every Muslim with this ideology is dead or imprisoned in Guantanamo?

Or, do we compromise by enforcing UN Resolution 242, which was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22 1967, and seeing where that gets us?
Since the 73 Yom Kipper war blew that to ratshite.......

Lets be blunt here. The 1948 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was accepted by the Jewish Agency for Israel, the proto Government of Israel but rejected by the the Arab Higher Committee that represented the Arabs in Palestine.

If the Arabs had accepted the 48 plan then the Middle East could have been a lot more peaceful over the last 60 plus years. Instead, the Arabs, egged on by the Arab League threw their teddy out the pram.

And. The Palestine's have never seriously been supported by any Arab state, they have been keep in a limbo state for 60 odd years because 1)The Arabs largely loathe them and b)they make a useful stick to beat the USA and the West with.
Otherwise explain why Gazza is blocked on the only Arab land border, not just the Israeli side......
 
#12
Kit, i agree - it is a shitty and complicated situation, but....

Whilst we continue to ignore International Law & UN Resolutions on this issue, our enemies have a fair point.

I say comply with above and then if they still want to pick a fight, unleash hell on them.

Until then we are an unjust, hypocritical bully.
 
#14
tubbs1970 said:
Hector - very informative post, thanks.

So, do we have an on going conflict until every Muslim with this ideology is dead or imprisoned in Guantanamo?

Or, do we compromise by enforcing UN Resolution 242, which was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22 1967, and seeing where that gets us?
Personally, I think that the Israel- Arab thing could be worked out locally if the USA and Iran both stood down, and let the locals sort it out.
The current Israeli government is heavily influenced by Right wing religious nutters, but Israel is still heavily dependant on the USA. There is, however, no treaty obligation. If the US made future support conditional on 1) a defence treaty obliging the US to support Israel only in time of war, and 2) Israeli withdrawal to agreed borders, etc,(to be negotiated with the Palestinians), then the religious right would not be able to do much about it.
The Iranians would need to stand down their proxy army in Lebanon, but what business have they got there anyway? The Sinai has already been handed back, the Jordanians have already got a peace treaty going, so the only real issue is with Syria on the Golan, and Lebanon. The Israelis only got involved in the Lebanon in the 80's cos of persistant PLO raiding, which is now in the hands of Hezbollah. All they achieved was to exchange Palestinian nationalists for Shia militants, but I think everyone would like to see the back of them, as they don't like the hand of Tehran this far West.

As to the ideology, I think that this is really part of an ongoing civil war within Islam itself. The Muslim world took a major thrashing throughout the 20th century, being stamped on by everyone, and showing an incredible ability to back losing causes. The reaction was to dig ever deeper into religious orthodoxy (Pray for help!) OR decide that Allah wasn't at the root of the problem, but bad government was.

It can be seen that many of the most successful Muslim (Not just Arab) countries are relatively moderate in religion, and although they may be dictatorships or one party states, do have respect for rule by civil law. Most of the worst, are desperately religious, wartorn anarchies.

This will probably take at least another 50 years to work its way through. Somehow or other the Islamic world will have to come up with a model to alow it to keep the working bits of its religion, but also adjust to some form of civil government without the Mullahs. This deliberate divorce of Church and State is what horrifies AQ.

In the meantime, yes, we will have to keep on culling the nutters while the process works itself out in the background.

I am hopeful though. When Europe did the same thing, we had the Reformation. We then had the Thirty Years War, and decades of violence all across Europe. By the time it all fizzled out, Europe entered the 1700's and a new age of science and reason we now call the Enlightenment. I hope that by the late 2190's there might be some progress!
 
#15
tubbs1970 said:
So, do we have an on going conflict until every Muslim with this ideology is dead or imprisoned in Guantanamo?
Well, it's unlikely to work but we could give it a try?

Or, do we compromise by enforcing UN Resolution 242, which was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22 1967, and seeing where that gets us?
But, as the Palestinian situation has nothing to do with the purity of the Dar-al-Islam (especially infidels infesting the Arabian Peninsular), surely all we are doing is attacking Israel (bad move - and how else do you think we might enforce the resolution - it is also interesting to see an attack on a sovereign democratic state described as 'compromise') in order to appease the many Israel-haters around. Some of whom, yes, are Muslim, but not all of them, and the Muslims are not necessary supporter of AQ (and, even if they are, don't have any significant influence over it.)

Personally, I would think that the radical whackos would spin it as the weak-willed West succumbing to the glorious jihad regardless of the actual logic behind the action (and their own lack of support for the Palestinian cause.)

HectortheInspector said:
It can be seen that many of the most successful Muslim (Not just Arab) countries are relatively moderate in religion, and although they may be dictatorships or one party states, do have respect for rule by civil law. Most of the worst, are desperately religious, wartorn anarchies.
Some of them, of course, are just (ab)using their oil riches to stave off their decay in to anarchy ...
 
#16
As others have said, Israel-Palestine is a total side issue to AQ. UBL is using it solely because his organisation is losing the majority of its support amongst Muslims as a result of the fact that their actions are killing more Muslims than Christians (amongst other things).

It is also right to say that AQ will NOT negotiate with the West because to do so further reduces its claim of legitimacy to represent the continuation of Allah's will in imposing a worldwide Islamic faith, Caliphate etc.

Tubb's comment about the IRA - 'you can't defeat such an ingrained political ideology - negotiation is the only real solution' - is disproven by the success of the Sri Lankan government in defeating the LTTE. It would be more accurate for the comment to read 'you can't defeat such an ingrained political ideology WITHIN THE RULES OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY'.

Another central difference that dismisses the comparison is that, however, much we may hate the fact, the IRA had a level of political legitimacy through Sinn Fein. Therefore, there was a legitimate entity to negotiate with. There is no such organisation for AQ as they have no political legitimacy.

In the basic argument about Israeli borders, I'm personally of the opinion that if the Arabs wanted to retain the pre-67 borders, then they shouldn't have attacked in either '48 or '73 (or potentially prompted the Israeli attack in '67). That Israel has the right of self-defence is uncontrovertible and the Golan Heights, in particular, are so vital to that defence that it will never give them up, particularly in light of the history of Arabic aggresion against it. I'm not suggesting that Israel is nice and fluffy or has gone about things the right way, but the nature of realpolitik is such that this event would be both unthinkable and irresponsible.
 
#17
Hector - i disagree with alot that you state, but accept we all have opinions.

Can you confirm that you suggest we ignore International Law as perscribed by the United Nations and prepare for 180+ years of continued conflict, including British soldiers dying for someone elses cause and domestic terror attacks?

Previously, the UK could only stomach about 40 years of that in Northern Ireland before we sat down and negotiated with terrorists/freedom fighters/insurgents/murdering bastards.
 
#18
tubbs1970 said:
Hector - i disagree with alot that you state, but accept we all have opinions.

Can you confirm that you suggest we ignore International Law as perscribed by the United Nations and prepare for 180+ years of continued conflict, including British soldiers dying for someone elses cause and domestic terror attacks?

Previously, the UK could only stomach about 40 years of that in Northern Ireland before we sat down and negotiated with terrorists/freedom fighters/insurgents/murdering bastards.
Feel free to disagree. This is a DISCUSSION thread!
I think that you are confusing two seperate issues.
1) International law- By which I presume you mean the UN Resolution 242?
2) 180+ years of conflict as forecast under the 'HectortheInspector Theory'?
Cos' they aren't the same bunny.

IF the UK Government, in support of its numerous international interests and treaty obligations, commits troops over the next 150+ years, it might, or might not, involve conflict with Muslim peoples. Using the history of the 19th and 20th century as a guide, we have in fact spent more time fighting Christians, or if fighting Muslims, IN ALLIANCE with other Muslims.
It MIGHT or MIGHT NOT involve fighting in and around, let us call it the old Palestine Mandate, which is now Israel (Plus or minus a bit)
So be it. But it is more likely that we will continue to commit forces elsewhere in the Muslim world, in places where the locals have barely heard of Israel, and wouldn't know it from a hole in the ground.

There are a LOT of UN Resolutions being ignored. Israel is the worst offender, but are you also going to involve us in enforcing the rest? Because we, and the rest of the World, have been happily ignoring International law since, well, since the UN was set up. And why was the UN set up? Because everyone ignored the League of Nations before it. And so on.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_41_38/ai_92524089/
"The Security Council has passed more than 1,400 resolutions since 1945. According to Jim Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Forum, an independent citizens' organization that monitors the United Nations, "the majority of resolutions, perhaps the overwhelming majority, have not been respected."

The case of Northern Ireland is very different. There are many, many views on the subject on here, and I never served there. I do however, think that the PIRA were an organisation that recognised that their day had passed, and chose to come in out of the cold. The old Official IRA had more or less died out, and the Provisionals were born out of the revolutionary counter-culture of the 1960's that spawned Baader-Meinhof, PFLP, and the other Communist alphabet Soup organisations.
However, that movement was nearly extinct by the late 1990's and 9/11 put the nail in the coffin. Basically, if you wanted to be a credible terrorist, you now needed to aim at mass casualties, and show willingness to suicide. It also cut off whatever American sympathies they had. Suddenly the IRA were not 'The boys' they were just 'Terrorists'

Remember also the age of the PIRA leadership. For instance, Martin McGuinness was born in 1950. He is now 60 years old. Whatever he was in his youth, the thought that all your old sins might come home in your old age might make you much more inclined to cut a deal when you are too old and creaky to go out bombing, especially if an amnesty was offered.

I think you have it around the wrong way. We didn't fight for 40 years, then negotiate. THEY fought for 40 years, and then negotiated. Take a look at their 'war aims'. Is there a united, socialist Ireland? Nope.
So, who actually won that one then? Just think of the UK as graceful winners.
 
#19
"Every time we (Israel) do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

- words spoken by Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
 
#20
tubbs1970 said:
Can you confirm that you suggest we ignore International Law as perscribed by the United Nations and prepare for 180+ years of continued conflict, including British soldiers dying for someone elses cause and domestic terror attacks?
What's your agenda here Tubby ? China annexed Tibet and when I was in Nepal a year ago I came across plenty of refugees from Tibet living in camps . Two things I noticed

No refugees from Tibet are crashing planes in to Chinese sky scrapers

No one seems to give a fvck about the plight of Tibet

So why you so interested in international law and Palestine ?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads